How can the conditions for mortal sin or actual baptism of desire be explicit for us human beings? This is the flaw in the new theology, in faith and morals. This point is omitted in Ferrara’s critique

A condition for mortal sin is 3 fold: knowledge that it is mortal, deliberation, and objectively immoral. If by explicit you mean, self-aware, then it depends on one’s self awareness, which is subjective; but if you mean objective, then one of the three is objective. Nevertheless, according to St. Alphonsus, deviations from the natural law, simply speaking, are impossible without deliberation and assent since no one can be ignorant of what is contrary to the manifest precepts of the natural law. For that reason, one does not need to address the issue directly in a critique of Amoris Laetitia, because it deals with such sins.

Correction: We cannot say in the case of any specific individual living in objective mortal sin that he will NOT go to Hell or that he has sanctifying grace, rather the Faith demands us to presume and declare, that unless he repents that he WILL go to Hell, and to presume and warn him, that he does not have sanctifying grace in his soul.

Lionel:

Correction: I do not remember sending you these two sentences above,I have sent you a report.You have not posted either of the two reports and instead have chosen two sentences.

Anyway I am still glad that you have chosen to answer,

Editor:Correction: We cannot say in the case of any specific individual living in objective mortal sin that he will NOT go to Hell or that he has sanctifying grace,

Lionel :

Yes so you agree that we physically cannot see any such case.

So there cannot be any known case of someone saved who is living in mortal sin.

Similarly there cannot be any known case of someone saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water.

Just as there cannot be a 'situation ethics' in moral theology there cannot be a known situation of someone saved without 'faith and baptism', in salvation theology.

_______________________Editor:rather the Faith demands us to presume and declare, that unless he repents that he WILL go to Hell, and to presume and warn him, that he does not have sanctifying grace in his soul.Lionel:This is understood.It is not the issue.The issue is : it is assumed there are exceptions to the traditional teachings on mortal sin.-Lionel Andrades

We cannot say in any specific case that one knows that someone living in mortal sin will not go to Hell and has Sanctifying Grace

If we eliminate the 'known exceptions' theory, Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Kasper would have to admit that there is no change in doctrine and that Vatican Council II supports the 16th century Jesuit missionaries on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the moral teachings of the Church are still the same as in the 16th century.

Then let's see if they still say doctrine has not changed.

Christopher Ferrara 1 and John Vennari 2 in their reports on the Exhortatation Amoris Laetitia have not stated that there cannot be any known exception to the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on faith and morals.

Amoris Laetitia is based on known exceptions to traditional mortal sin.While Pope Benedict's 'development of doctrine' on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is also based on known exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

This is heresy in faith and morals based on knowing, in human terms, non Catholics who are saved outside the Church and Catholics who are saved even though they have been living in mortal sin.Humanly it is not possible to know

this in specific cases.

We cannot physically see people in Heaven who are in this category.There is no 'situation ethics' in morals and there should be no 'situation ethics' in faith.The baptism of desire and blood without the the baptism of water, cannot be a known situation in our reality in 2016.There cannot be exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.The Holy Office in 1949 made a mistake in the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Hypothetical cases being explicit exceptions to traditional teachings is an innovation in the Church.

1) Someone should ask the two popes or cardinals Schonborn or Burke, whom do they know who is in Heaven in 2016, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7,LG 14)?

2) Who do they know on earth in 2016 who is living in mortal sin and will still go to Heaven? How can they physically see or know an exception?

Also ask them where is the case of someone saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word(AG 11),elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), all, without the baptism of water?

There is no such case.

So does Vatican Council II really support the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries, contrary to what Pope Benedict said ?

The answer is Yes.

If we eliminate the 'known exceptions' theory, Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Kasper would have to admit that there is no change in doctrine and that Vatican Council II supports the 16th century Jesuit missionaries on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the moral teachings of the Church are still the same as in the 16th century.

Situation Ethics Enshrined - Q & A on Francis' Amoris Laetitia

With Amoris Laeititia's 'situation ethics', 'subjectivism' and 'known exceptions to mortal sin', the traditional doctrine on mortal sin, salvation, receiving the Eucharist and sacrilege has been changed.

From the blog 1Peter5 : Cardinal Marx: “No Situation in Which Someone Is Excluded”

Cardinal Marx added that Pope Francis, in his exhortation, did not “have to change the great doctrinal teaching...

Lionel: John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara call it 'Situation Ethics' 1 and Father Matthias Guadron ,SSPX calls is 'subjectivism'.2

They are both referring to the new moral theology, which supposes

(1) hypothetical theories or factors are known.So there could be some or many people living in mortal sin who will not go to Hell since they are 'exceptions'.

(2) It assumes we can physically see Catholics in Heaven who were living in mortal sin on earth. So it concludes that there are exceptions to the traditional teaching on morals.

So with Amoris Laeititia's 'situation ethics', 'subjectivism' and 'known exceptions to mortal sin', the traditional doctrine on mortal sin, salvation, receiving the Eucharist and sacrilege has been changed.

So why does Cardinal Marx say that Pope Francis, in his exhortation, did not “have to change the great doctrinal teaching..."

The moral theology of the 16th century did not state that there were known exceptions to mortal sin.So doctrine on morals has been changed.Amoris Laetitia says there are exceptions(301)

The salvation theology of the 16th century did not state that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Pope Benedict confirmed that the dogma EENS is no more interpreted like in the 16th century. So doctrine has been changed.

Why does Cardinal Raymond Burke state that Amoris Laetitia reflects 'the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline' and ' does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline...'? 3

Fr. Z's Blog: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

Amoris laetitia didn’t change what John Paul wrote (and which millennial tradition of commentaries and teachings have maintained).

Lionel: I have mentioned in a previous blog post that Cardinal Raymond Burke and Prof. Joseph Shaw assume hypothetical factors or theories are explicit exceptions to the traditional de fide teaching on faith and morals. So with this heretical theology they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.This is a rupture with with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known in the 16th century.

They also accept Amoris Laetitia n.301 when it is a break with Tradition.It is a rupture with the traditional understanding of mortal sin.

If they say hypothetical factors or theories are not explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on faith and morals, they will be affirming the 'rigorist' interpretation of the dogma EENS and also traditional mortal sin,as I do.They will not do this.It would be politically incorrect.

Fr.John Zuhksdorf's interpretation of Vatican Council II is a break with the old ecclesiology which is based on the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr.Zuhlsdorf like Cardinal Raymond Burke and Joseph Shaw also approves Amoris Laetitia n.301 which is a break with the traditional understanding of mortal sin.Traditionally it was known that there could not be any visible, seen in the flesh cases of persons in mortal sin who would be going to Heaven.There could not be any physically known exceptions for us human beings.

'Millennial tradition of commentaries and teachings' did not maintain that there were known exceptions for us human beings to the traditional teachings on faith and morals.With the use of an irrational premise ( there are visible in the flesh cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church and there are known cases in Heaven of Catholics who are there with mortal sin on their soul) that it was inferred irrationally, that there are known exceptions to the the dogma EENS and the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

This is a change in doctrine and is heresy.It has been part of the new salvation and moral theology and is made official in Amoris Laeitia(301).

_____________________________

The Church’s doctrine is the same today as it was before 8 April 2016.

Lionel: The irrational reasoning which created a new theology was there all these years. It has been officially acknowledged and now approved in Amoris Laetitia.

The same is the case for the baptism of desire etc being an exception to EENS.For Fr.John Zuhlsdorf the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not just hypothetical cases.They are known exceptions to EENS.This is irrational since he would not know personally of such a case in 2016. However it was important for him to formally reject the Feenyite version of the dogma, for whatever reason, with this irrationality. Now for some reason he also has to accept Amoris Laetitia(AL) with the change in the moral teaching on mortal sin.May be he knows of someone living in manifest mortal sin in the USA who will still go to Heaven and is an exception to the traditional teaching.

________________________________

The Church’s law is the same today as it was before 8 April 2016.

Lionel: However the doctrine and practise has been changed and now there is official recognition in AL.Sacrilege has been approved in reality.May be the canon books will catch up over time.

_________________________________

It remains that a priest cannot be required not to follow the Church’s law and he cannot be prevented from preaching Catholic doctrine, nor can he be compelled to preach something against the Church’s doctrine.

Lionel:The new theology is the official theology of the Catholic Church.lt is based on an irrationality. The result is a break with Tradition.It is heresy.It interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition even though there is a rational and traditional option available.

With this new theology, there are also allegedly known exceptions to the tradional understanding of mortal sin.In reality, there cannot be any defacto case of mortal sin.Yet the new doctrine says the exceptions are explicitly known, 'the subjective mitigating conditions' are objectively known.So objectively according to the new moral theology, the new theology, there is no known case of mortal sin.There cannot be a known case of mortal sin. Theoretically, in principle one can accept the old or new doctrine on mortal sin. In reality there is no objective mortal sin for cardinals Marx, Schonborn, Kasper, Wuerl and others.

All these errors were there in the past too and so Pope John Paul II issued the moral encyclical Veritatis Splendor which said that a mortal sin is always a mortal sin and subjective factors are not exceptions.It said objectively we can tell when a person is in mortal sin. AL contradicts this clearly in N.301.

______________________________

Thus, Summorum Pontificum, that great gift of Benedict XVI to the Church, that profound aid in his “Marshall Plan” to rebuild after the devastation against the encroaching dictatorship of relativism, provides a necessary corrective for a serious gap in our worship and, therefore, identity. Once again we hear in our churches, in the context of Mass, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord”, knowing full well that it means that we mustn’t approach the Eucharistic Lord for for Communion in the state of mortal sin.

Lionel:The new theology is heretical. It contradicts the Nicene Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.It makes Vatican Council II emerge as a break with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries and Fr.Leonard Feeney.It also changes the traditional interpretation of mortal sin.This is all accepted by Fr.John Zuhlsdorf , Cardinal Raymond Burke and Joseph Shaw. They offer/ attend the Traditional Latin Mass with this official heresy.

What if Cardinal Burke and Fr. Zuhlsdorf said that there are no known exceptions to Catholic moral and salvation theology ?.Would they lose their religious faculties in Rome?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/what-if-cardinal-burke-and-fr-zuhlsdorf.html